Rock Island daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1886-1893, 1887-01-17
IOWA'S LIQUOR LAW.
IL Brings About n suit EnvOl wing a
Rock Island Eirnl--KOhn Il Adler
Sue a Hawkeye Druggist and are

bFIukB ADOut u sun Va VINE -
Rock Island Firm Kohn 4 Adler
Sue a Hawkeye Druggist and are
Defeated.
Kohn & Adler, the well known whole>
sale liquor dealers of this city. are the
parties to suit which drew forth the
decision concerning the prohibitory law
from Judge Shiras, of the United States
court for the northern district of Iowa.
The title of the case was "kohn & Adler
VS. C. II. Melcher." The defendant is a
druggist at Atlantic, Iowa. selling intox-
icating liquors under a permit from tine
county board of supervisors. For three
years prior to. and including 1884. Kohn
81 Adler sold Melcher about $500
worth of liquors, on which it is claimed,
81 900 is still due. In the answer and
counter claim it was averred that the
liquors were sold in violation OF the stat>
ute of Iowa, in that the same were sold
by plaintiffs at the town of Atlantic. the
plaintiffs not being authorized under the
laws of Iowa to sell liquor for any pur
pose. The unter-claim was brought
for the purpose of recovering back from
plaintiffs the amount of $500. hereto
tore paid upon the account under provi>
sion CT section 1850 of the code of Iowa.
The demurrer to the answer End
counter.claim presented the question,
| whether. under the statutes of Iowa in
force during the years 1881 and 1884 in
elusive, persons residing and carrying on
| business as rectifiers and wholesale deal,
ersin states other than Iowa. could law
fully sell intoxicating liquors 10 be re-.
sold for culinary, sacramento, medicinal
and mechanical purposes, to registered
pharmacist doing business in Iowa, and
holding proper permit authorizing him
TO sell liquors for the purposes named,
provided the contract of sale between the
nonresident wholesale dealer and the
registered pharmacist was made within
the state of Iowa, and at the residence OF
the latter party. In the demurrer it was
claimed that under the laws of Iowa none
but citizens can secure ii permit, and the
statute debarring them from this selling
was in violation of the constitution oil
the United States in regard to commerce
between the states.
| The court decided against the plaintiffs
claiming that the statutes of Iowa shows
that the restrictions complained of were
adopted, not for the purpose of securing
an undue advantage TO the citizens Of
the state. but to prevent violations of thu
prohibition law of the state. and al
though in effect the citizens of othe
states. as we'll as the larger part of tn,
citizens of Iowa. are debarred from
selling in Iowa liquors to be resold TO
legal purposes, and in that sense com
; merce between the states may be affected
yet this is but an incidental result, an,
not a violation of the federal constitu
ton, and being valid. it follows that
sale of Intoxicating liquors made in lows
for any purpose by a person holding
/; permit TO sell. is unlawful, and no actor
, can be maintained to recover the pric
of such liquors. On those grounds the de
murrer to the answer ives overruled. Con
corning the other parties of the demurre
G in regard to the recovery of the money
already paid in the amount, Judge Shira
: Claims that the plaintiff not having
: legal right to sell, could not make lega
e contract in Iowa, and hence coming int
q Iowa to seek recovery for the liquor
t sold, he cannot maintain the action, be
cause he cannot show a legal contrat
ues: Understanding that the counse
: proposes carrying the constitutions
l. question presented by the demurrer t
: the answer 10 the court of final result,
;. would seem best to have all the question
s in the case decided at once, and to tina
e end the demurrer 10 the counter clair
will be sustained"
1t is peculiarly novel case. Melcht
= held a legal permit to sell liquors undo
g Iowa's wonderful law. He bought h
ID liquors of Kohn & Adler for legal pun
Il poses, and when called upoa for pay re
e. fused the contract compensation on II
ground that he had sold the liquors lille
X gally. And the United States suprem
10 court must search constitutional law {
,, ascertain whether there was violation
m the constitution of the United States
ID not in the claim of the plaintiffs und
. such circumstances.